New Target of the Food Police (CSPI)

Personally, I think it is the eating of too much & not getting enough
exercise.

Regrettably, people don't really, IMHO, make enough of an effort to
understand how their body works and what is really healthy for it.

Jeff

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:20:34 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

I don't know . . . if Krispy Kreme wants to promote education, what ELSE
could they give away?

Granted, there are limits to that -- I wouldn't want Budweiser or
Marlboro offering THIER product free for every A! But a donut?

The little grocers down the street from the grade school my kids went to
in Mass had a sign in the window every time report cards came out that
they would give something -- a candy bar, I think -- to every kid who
came in and showed them at least one A on a report card. I kind of
liked it; and the owner/operator got to know the kids and supported the
school in other ways, too.

Rewards in general are a bad idea, but using food (even things that
are good for you) sets up a whole chain of consequences that are
bad. Children who are rewarded with food tend to eat when they are
not hungry and to eat junk food instead of nutritious food, imho.

It's something we need to get away from.

After all, good grades are a reward in and of themselves, so why
reward a reward in the first place.
'
Aside from that we need instrinsic motivations for learning not
external ones. Neither punishment or reward provides any incentive
to self-disciplined learning. And in fact, these things take the joy
out of learning for its own sake. It's one of the biggest problems
in our schools today, imo.

The fact is that children who are rewarded work *only* until they
achieve the reward and then they stop. Even when the task is
inherently interesting the child stops once the reward is given.
Children who are not rewarded work longer and harder on the
tasks they are given *because* they want to learn and the task
is inherently interesting to begin with.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In article ,
toto wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:20:34 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

I don't know . . . if Krispy Kreme wants to promote education, what ELSE
could they give away?

Granted, there are limits to that -- I wouldn't want Budweiser or
Marlboro offering THIER product free for every A! But a donut?

The little grocers down the street from the grade school my kids went to
in Mass had a sign in the window every time report cards came out that
they would give something -- a candy bar, I think -- to every kid who
came in and showed them at least one A on a report card. I kind of
liked it; and the owner/operator got to know the kids and supported the
school in other ways, too.

Rewards in general are a bad idea, but using food (even things that
are good for you) sets up a whole chain of consequences that are
bad. Children who are rewarded with food tend to eat when they are
not hungry and to eat junk food instead of nutritious food, imho.

It's something we need to get away from.

After all, good grades are a reward in and of themselves, so why
reward a reward in the first place.
'
Aside from that we need instrinsic motivations for learning not
external ones. Neither punishment or reward provides any incentive
to self-disciplined learning. And in fact, these things take the joy
out of learning for its own sake. It's one of the biggest problems
in our schools today, imo.

The fact is that children who are rewarded work *only* until they
achieve the reward and then they stop. Even when the task is
inherently interesting the child stops once the reward is given.
Children who are not rewarded work longer and harder on the
tasks they are given *because* they want to learn and the task
is inherently interesting to begin with.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In general, I agree; however, no kid *I* know is going to bust their
butt to get an A for one lousy donut, or a soda, or any other tiny
thing. Report cards come out, at most, 4 times a year. If we were
talking about a candy bar for every test with an A, I could see that it
could create a problem. Frankly, if parents aren't rewarding kids with
food, having a local merchant do it once every couple of months isn't
likely to warp a kids attitude towards food!

I guess I don't think of these small things as "rewards", part of a
system intended to encourage kids to do well. I think of them more like
awards: recognition of a job well done, an opportunity for a kid to
brag a little, an opportunity (in the case of the grocers) for a local
business person to have some positive interaction with the kids who are
in and out of his store -- not a Really Big Deal, but not dangerous or
damaging, either. It's just a small thing someone does to say "I've
noticed you are doing well."

I dislike a SCHOOL system that rewards kids for grades; some of the
so-called positive-discipline programs I've seen have, imho, been awful:
they seem to assume the only reason to behave well is for a reward.
There is virtually NO room in those programs for kids to find the
intrinsic satisfaction of a job well done. However, I don't see these
outside things as in the same category.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:21:21 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

Frankly, if parents aren't rewarding kids with
food, having a local merchant do it once every couple of months isn't
likely to warp a kids attitude towards food!

Except that it has become the norm and it is pervasive in our
society.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Ignoramus19587" wrote in message
...

In article , JG wrote:

[...]

I see no factual misinformation in that particular CSPI report.

I challenge you to point out just where is CSPI lying, in the
report
that you posted.

Their facts/data may be okay (which *states*, as opposed to, say,
school
districts, forbid the use of food as a reward?); it's their
conclusions/allegations with which I take issue.

Well, I think that the bulk of that CSPI's report is actually facts.

The *facts* presented are not in dispute; I'll stipulate that they're
true. (Will you agree that there is, however, some spin put on them?
E.g., the CSPI denigrates Campbell's Soup for its "Labels for Education"
program, yet several of Campbell's products are quite wholesome and
nutritious.) The CSPI goes too far, however, when it moves from simply
providing facts (information) to pushing for gubmnt regulation of
advertising.

The conclusions are not that far removed from those facts either.

This is a meaningless statement; the "conclusions" are subjective (and,
IMO, politically motivated).

That food manufacturers use sophisticated techniques that make
children overeat, is pretty obvious.

Guns don't make people fire them. Cars don't make people drive
them. Gambling games/devices don't make people play/use them.
Hookers don't make people patronize them. Alcohol/drugs don't make
people ingest/inject them. And (drum roll, please) food
manufacturers/marketers don't MAKE people buy/consume their
products.

No, but we should be aware of dangers of guns and educate our children
about dangers of guns. (this comes from an NRA member with a bunch of
guns in the house).

Yes; we agree on this. My position is quite simple: Furnishing
information is okay; pushing for government intervention IN ORDER TO
CURTAIL *LEGAL* ACTIVITIES is not.

We should similarly be aware of lying and tricks of food companies and
dangers of junk foods, and teach our children about that as well.

Again, I agree. I think it's a wonderful idea for parents to teach kids
an all-encompassing lesson: Not everyone "out there" has their (kids')
best interests at heart, and not everyone "plays fair." (Unfortunately,
I think many in public education are undermining--to borrow the CSPI's
phrasing g--this lesson. Somehow, "discrimination" has become
something horrid, and the ability to discriminate--to discern--is being
lost. Too many kids today seem to leave school with the idea that
*everyone's* views/opinions are of equal merit when, of course, they're
*not*.)

If
the CSPI report helps me be more alert, I am thankful.

....I somehow think you've missed my point (objections) entirely.

That giving schools incentives
based on school sales of junk sodas,

Welcome to capitalism, friend! It's the system of *choices*.
People
get to prioritize their needs/wants. Apparently many schools have
decided that generating revenue via the promotion/sale of various
foods
and beverages of questionable nutritional value is more important
than
acquiescing to the demands of some that such practices be stopped.

School is not a choice.

Education itself--*SCHOOLING*--may not be a choice, but which school
(with its attendant policies and curriculum) a child attends IS. (I'm
wholly in favor of repealing mandatory attendance laws, FWIW.)

makeschildren drink too much of
the sugar laden water, is also obvious.

See above.

That they benefit from
overeating, is also obvious. That they benefit from replacing
healthy
foods with crap, is also obvious. That they have no financial
incentives to make children healthies, is also obvious.

It is NOT schools' job to "make children healthy"(!) If schools'
promotion of "junk" food and beverages concerns you, have you
considered
offering them (school administrators) *more* money to cease their
practices (i.e., have you considered outbidding the "food-pushers")?
Have you considered pulling your kids (and the $$$ attached to them)
out
of any schools that engage in such promotion, and/or encouraged
other,
like-minded parents to do the same?

School is not a choice and most schools are not private.

See above. Get together with like-minded parents and form a charter
school.

They are public institutions supported by taxes and created to
accomplish societal purposes.

No argument there! ("And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never
says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in
order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A
school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still
young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes
and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps." --H.L.
Mencken)

This is a free country. That means that capitalists are free to
market
foods that are bad for the children. It comes with the territory,
so
to speak.

Thank God! Capitalism rocks! g

But that also means that parents should be informed so that they
can
counter those capitalists and raise thwir children to become
healthy
and fit young people and not sugar addicted cripples.

Yes, parents should be informed. It's THEIR responsibility to see
that
they are!

And that's where CSPI steps in. To keep us informed.

Again (for the last time?): Providing information is okay. Analyzing
it FOR US is not, nor is pushing for various governments to interfere in
the marketing of *legal* products.

And yes, overeating does cause obesity. But what causes overeating?

The individual him/herself? g No one's coercing the
overweight/obese
to overeat (or to refrain from exercising).

If winnie the pooh tells a 3 year old to eat froot loops, it is
coercion. (this example is hypothetical).

I honestly don't think many would agree with you. What *force* is Pooh
using? Persuasion is NOT coercion. (You can't possibly think Winnie
the Pooh can out-persuade, let alone "out-coerce," a parent ...or do
you? g)

The proper role of the
parent it to turn off the TV, in my opinion.

Yes. It's far better than demanding that something you rather your kids
not see be taken off the air.

Put yourself in a parents shoes. Your children are deluged with
advertising of products. Their favorite cartoon heroes are peddling
those junk products to them.

I *am* a parent (two daughters, 27 and 16).

No one's forcing kids to watch any programs that contain advertising
of
products (or advertising techniques) of which they disapprove.

Children do not have the same free will as adults.

You would have to define what *you* mean by "free will" in order for me
to offer an adequate response to this. If you accept the "dictionary
definition" --that "free will," strictly speaking, is "the freedom or
ability to choose," then I'd have to partially disagree; the degree of
*freedom* to choose varies among children (and is almost invariably set
by their parents/guardians), but certainly most have the *ability* to
choose. One would expect (and certainly hope!) that adults, thanks to
education and experience, are more capable than children to make "good"
choices (but, of course, they often make lousy decisions).

If I seduced your 12 year old daughter and then tried to excuse myself
by saying that "she chose to ****...

Is your vocabulary truly this limited?

...with me", my guess is that you won't
accept that reasoning.

Neither you should reason that it is kids themselves at fault if they
are 5 year old and winnie the pooh told them to beg their parents to
buy them froot loops.

Your analogy has serious flaws. (And where--via what medium--have you
seen ANY character, or real person, instruct/coach kids to "beg their
parents" for ANYTHING? Perhaps subliminal advertising is again in
vogue? Funny, I haven't seen any zombie-like, "Yes, Master Winnie" kids
in MY neighborhood...g) Every state has designated an "age of
consent"--the age at which a person has the legal right to give consent
regarding sex. There is no equivalent "age of consent" regarding
advertising; i.e., there's nothing to stop marketers from attempting to
persuade (seduce?) kids to purchase, or "beg" a parent to purchase for
them, any food/beverage. Age of consent laws regarding sex arose out of
"community" morals; good luck trying to persuade (enough) legislators
that advertising aimed kids is immoral. (BTW, attempt to seduce my
minor daughter and you WILL be shot. I, too, have guns. And a
Sharpshooter [handgun] rating. Care to guess at what part of your
anatomy I'd aim? g)

You have no idea what is
in those products, froot loops, and other ****.

Get a thesaurus. Please.

Ah, but I do! (I read the "nutrition information" labels on the
packaging.)

That was a hypothetical statement. Like you, I read nutrition labels
religiously.

So can any literate person. (No, I won't launch another attack on
public education :-)). It's not like they're hidden or anything...

Would it not be
appropriate to learn just what these froot loops and so on contain,
and then take appropriate action, pointing out to children that
they
should ignore advertising of junk food?

YES! This is a role/responsibility parents should take on.

Thank you.

I do not always agree with CSPI. Their hyperfocus on "saturated
fat"
may be misplaced. But the particular report that you posted is all
facts and the facts are likely to be true.

I was under the impression that "facts" are, by definition, "true."
g
The same cannot be said for *reasoning* based on facts, however.

We as parents have to be vigilant and keep our children's best
interests in mind, and recognize that the junk food peddlers are
not
there to help us.

They are if you own stock in the company!

I owned a tobacco company (UST) at some point. But I would not put
their **** in my mouth.

Just your share of the profits in your pocket, eh?

In article ,
Banty wrote:

Furthermore, Pepsi isn't what makes you fat. Indeed, many people on
successful
reducing diets have a soft drink now and then.

The cause of fat, as ever, is to eat more in calories than one expends.

1. Well last week that was proven to be not necessarily correct. The
old "calorie in = calorie out and excess makes you fat" did not work in
a controlled study of three diets. Turned out that the group who
consumed 200 calories/day excess (low carb/ moderate fat) lost weight
and the group that achieved calorie balance (high carb/low fat) gained
weight. So much for another medical jewel being tossed down the drain.

here's the link to the news item:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet....ystery.ap/inde
x.html

other stuff:

2. Rewarding kids with food is archaic. We do that with dogs.

3. looks like you Brits think that banning tv food ads beamed to kids
should be banned:

"Call for TV food ads ban"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3238255.stm

"The kids aren't alright "

http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertis...082222,00.html



--Larry
Our daughter doesn't eat junk food----we save it for ourselves!

--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m

1. Well last week that was proven to be not necessarily correct. The
old "calorie in = calorie out and excess makes you fat" did not work in
a controlled study of three diets. Turned out that the group who
consumed 200 calories/day excess (low carb/ moderate fat) lost weight
and the group that achieved calorie balance (high carb/low fat) gained
weight. So much for another medical jewel being tossed down the drain.

here's the link to the news item:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet....ystery.ap/inde
x.html

I'm not sure how controled this study was. The article never
mentioned that the participants were monitored 24/7, just that they
picked up the meals from the scientists. Does that mean that they were
able to eat other foods if they wanted? It also didn't account for
exercise. If they studied a large group of people that agree to live
in one spot for about three months, so they could be monitored on what
they ate and how much they excercised, it would be more accurate.

Renee

In article , dragonlady
says...

In article ,
toto wrote:



The fact is that children who are rewarded work *only* until they
achieve the reward and then they stop. Even when the task is
inherently interesting the child stops once the reward is given.
Children who are not rewarded work longer and harder on the
tasks they are given *because* they want to learn and the task
is inherently interesting to begin with.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

In general, I agree; however, no kid *I* know is going to bust their
butt to get an A for one lousy donut, or a soda, or any other tiny
thing. Report cards come out, at most, 4 times a year. If we were
talking about a candy bar for every test with an A, I could see that it
could create a problem. Frankly, if parents aren't rewarding kids with
food, having a local merchant do it once every couple of months isn't
likely to warp a kids attitude towards food!

Well, at least for this family, food as a reward would mean one more thing that
I would have to counteract in my teaching at home.

Ads presenting a food as the latest and greatest is one thing - parents need to
be teaching their kids about what advertisements are about to begin with. But a
basic cause underlying the overeating leading to obesity is this food=love and
food=reward and more-food-the-better attitude which underlies eating for its own
sake, beyond ones needs.

I do draw the line at the school using food as a reward.

Banty

In article , LarryDoc
says...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

Furthermore, Pepsi isn't what makes you fat. Indeed, many people on
successful
reducing diets have a soft drink now and then.

The cause of fat, as ever, is to eat more in calories than one expends.

1. Well last week that was proven to be not necessarily correct. The
old "calorie in = calorie out and excess makes you fat" did not work in
a controlled study of three diets. Turned out that the group who
consumed 200 calories/day excess (low carb/ moderate fat) lost weight
and the group that achieved calorie balance (high carb/low fat) gained
weight. So much for another medical jewel being tossed down the drain.

here's the link to the news item:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet....ystery.ap/inde
x.html


First of all, this is a seconday source - a news media report of a study does
not a citation make. You're going through an intermediary who most often does
not understand the study. For one thing, it's quite unclear whether or not
'extra calories' is comparing diets, or comparing to physical needs. Secondly -
I urge you to go back to read it - even so there is a fair amoung of skepticism
expressed even by the authors of the study.

I'm surprised to see you take this approach.

Banty

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 06:55:49 GMT, "JG" wrote:

School is not a choice and most schools are not private.

See above. Get together with like-minded parents and form a charter
school.

Interesting idea, but... not as easily done as you think. Believe it
or not, it takes money up front to start a school of any kind and it
takes a lot more than just like-minded parents to make it work.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits